You tune in the local news at quarter past the hour and a nicely dressed man is standing in front of a map of the United States. He tells you that the weather forecast for the next day calls for partly cloudy skies and a 30 percent chance of rain showers. Great, so it may rain tomorrow and it may not. How does this affect you? Maybe you should carry an umbrella to work just in case you are caught in one of these rain showers. Maybe you should wear sunscreen in case you are not. In descriptive statistics, a 30 percent probability of any event occurring means that the chances are slim, but there's still a chance. Weather prediction is not an exact science since a forecaster can never be 100 percent sure of what will happen in the future. Public weather forecasters should not be held legally liable for their forecasts since the day-to-day weather is based on so many factors that may or may not be accurately predicted.
Since 1951, several lawsuits have been filed against agencies that provide weather forecasts to the public, such as the National Weather Service (formerly the U.S. Weather Bureau). These lawsuits were filed by companies or individuals who lost either property or loved ones due to significant weather events. All plaintiffs involved claimed that their losses were due to erroneous forecasts provided by professional meteorologists. The question posed here is if a person suffers a loss due to an inaccurate weather forecast, should the forecasting agency or individual be held legally responsible?.
In only one out of thirteen cases filed against the U.S. government was the plaintiff awarded damages. In the case of Springer v. U.S., $1.4 million was awarded when the court found the National Weather Service (NWS) was negligent in warning pilots of severe wind shear that resulted in an airplane crash. However, in the essay "Bad Weather? Then Sue the Weatherman," Roberta Klein and R.
